| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Check constraints on non-immutable keys |
| Date: | 2010-06-30 23:41:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20052.1277941316@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The detailed definition is amazingly laborious and yet limited, though,
>> as it basically doesn't address the problem except for that specific
>> case and close relatives.
> Well, solving the problem in general is equivalent to the halting problem, so...
So is proving determinism. They had the sense to *not* try to define
what that means.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-07-01 00:52:18 | Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-30 23:41:53 | Re: 9.0beta2 - server crash when using HS + SR |